Sample Formal Team Debate

1st Affirmative Speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, today were here to talk about something very important. The topic of
todays debate is whether or not the United States of America should adopt English as its
official language. First of all, when we say official language, my partner and I mean that
English should be the language used in all government business, administration, and
publicity. Government documents, the proceedings of official meetings, and so on could still
be translated, but emphasis would be put on addressing language barriers with English as a
second language (hereafter called ESL) education rather than constant and expensive
translations.
As you may have already inferred, my partner and I stand in firm affirmation of this topic:
English should indeed be made the official language of the United States of America. In our
first speech, I will be talking to about how our country is suffering without an official language
and why we need one. After taking some time to respond to our opponents, my partner will
address how adopting an official language policy will be tremendously helpful to everyone,
whether they presently speak English or not.
The first point we want to bring up is something vital: communication. Without it, a business
owner could never sell her products. A patient could never tell his doctor what his symptoms
are. If you do not speak the same language as a person, it is basically the same as not being
able to communicate at all. Right now, in the United States, we deal with language barriers
by making government documents and materials available in a wide array of languages via
translation. The problems with this are twofold. First, this is a band-aid solution that forces a
dependency on the beneficiary of the translations. Second, translation is not cheap and there
is no end in sight. If the government continues on this course, it will have to dump money into
translating all official materials at an ever-increasing rate.
The second point we would like to address is the equity of the American Dream. No matter
who you are or where you are from, hard work and determination will give you a fair shot to
succeed in the USA. For that to be the case, however, we need to make sure that we are
doing everything possible to make sure that everyone is getting an equal chance at success.
We can only do this by making sure that everyone served by our government, which is
everyone who lives in the USA, can speak the same language. If we fail in this, our
government is neglecting the needs of non-native English speakers and indirectly favoring
those born into families that speak English.

1st Negative Speech:

Ladies and gentlemen, our opponents are correct in one thing, and that is stressing the
importance of this topic. To begin, their definition of what an English Only policy would be like
is flawed. By claiming that there would still be translations but they would save money by
switching to ESL education, they are attempting to claim the benefits of their position without
addressing the harms it does to society.

My partner and I disagree with the other team and believe that the United States should not
adopt English as its official language. The US has never had such a policy, has never
needed one, and certainly does not need one now. After showing why my opponents
arguments are wrong, I am going to detail the historical basis for rejecting an English Only
policy and why that means we do not need one today. My partner will also respond to the
affirmative teams arguments and then demonstrate the ways that such a policy would harm
the United States and its citizens.
The two points my opponent presented can be grouped into one single point, which is as
follows: We need an English Only policy to benefit the people who do not speak English. The
fact is, such a policy would not help them at all. Our opponents claim that ESL education
equips non-English speakers with skills for economic success, and thats true, but such
programs are already in place in the US. They could only make a difference with this policy if
money were taken out of providing translations. If that were done, however, tens of
thousands of non-English speaking adults would be disenfranchised unless they were forced
to attend ESL classes, which would quickly become a financial hardship and a violation of
personal liberty.
Fortunately, the United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Since our inception,
people have poured in from all corners of the globe to make the United States of America
what it is today. Indeed, it is our diversity, rather than our homogeneity, that is our greatest
strength. We only have the strong economy we do because our infrastructure was built by
hard working immigrants from places including Italy, China, Germany, and Switzerland. In the
past, these demographics were mistreated severely. Along with the violation of their civil
rights, they were stereotyped as being isolationist foreigners and a threat to American culture
and the English language. History has shown this notion to be nothing more than alarmist
xenophobia. These groups have integrated into our linguistic culture and even helped
American English to become more distinct from English spoken in other parts of the world.
Just as we did not need legislation or policy to protect us linguistically from immigrants in
the past, we certainly do not need it now.

2nd Affirmative Speech:

Allow me to start off by restating that the United States of America definitely needs to declare
English as its official language, and what our opponents have said supports that. The biggest
example that supports our position is the hardship suffered by the immigrant groups they
listed. When Italian and Chinese immigrants came over to the US in waves, they had a very
hard time obtaining higher education, securing loans, and generally enjoying the privileges
that should, supposedly, be available to everyone. Is it not possible that this was due, at least
in part, to their inability to speak English? If you and a friend both move to a country where
he speaks the language and you do not, who do you think is going to succeed? Your friend
is, of course, and it was the same way for these poor immigrants. Today, plenty of people are
still immigrating to the USA, and we do not have to let them suffer like previous generations
of immigrants have. We need to apply the lessons of the past and declare English as the
official language of the United States of America so that we can help them adapt and
succeed in our nation.

Such a policy would bring with it a myriad of benefits to our society. First and foremost would
be satisfying the moral obligation we have to help immigrants integrate into the American
community. If we fail in this regard, not only are we guilty of a moral and sociological
trespass, but the byproduct would be creating a subversive, marginalized element of society.
Rather, making English the official language of the United States would help include
immigrating Americans into both our language and culture, allowing them and their children a
more productive means of socioeconomic growth and helping to keep them away from
criminal activity. An additional benefit would be the amount of jobs created, not just because
of the expanded workforce resulting from more fluent, capable workers but also from the
teaching positions that would become available to make this dream a reality. In summary, for
a better economy, a reduction in crime and, foremost, because it is a moral obligation, the US
ought to adopt English as its official language.

2nd Negative Speech:

The United States does not need an official language, be it English or any other. So far, our
opponents have built their case on some pretty dubious claims that border on being
offensive. Most recently, our opponents tried very gently to say that the US should have an
official language policy to keep immigrants from committing crimes. Now, lets not mince
words, here: the largest group immigrating to the US are people from Central and South
America. The affirmative team has done a good job at subtly hinting at it instead of saying it
outright, but what my opponents really want is for you to agree with them out of baseless
Hispanophobia. Once you begin saying, These poor people from another country deserve to
be reeducated and included in our culture, what you are really saying is, We need to
remake their identity as Americans because our culture is superior to theirs. Obviously, this
is unethical and completely invalidates their claims to be fulfilling a moral obligation.
Making English the official language of the United States would harm our country in other
ways, too. Such a policy sends a clear message: Who you are when you arrive here is not
good enough. You will change because we want you to. Our native language is a part of our
very personalities; the language of our innermost thoughts. Rejecting that in a person is
hardly the kind of message that would culturally unify a diverse population. Rather, it divides
them, declaring that English-speaking America is somehow above immigrant America.
Because of this, we could only expect a reaction of resentment and, with it, a rise in crime. A
federal ESL policy would be economically harmful as well for the simple fact that there are
already private English-teaching services in the United States. Is it fair for the United States
government to take customers away from private companies just to satisfy a misguided
sense of linguistic protectionism? Of course not. The only responsible conclusion is that the
United States of America does not need an official language.

3rd Affirmative Speech:

Throughout the course of this debate, we have proven and demonstrated that the United
States should make English its official language. The goal of doing so would certainly not be
to somehow diminish the value of other cultures or languages, but better equip recently
arrived American citizens with the skills they need to thrive in their new country. ESL

education does not teach a person that English is better than their native language any more
than it teaches them that an American brand clothing or hamburgers with french fries are
better than their native attire or food.
My partner and I have demonstrated that the great benefits that would result from making
English the official language of the United States. Immigrants would be given the tools for
financial success, employment opportunities would be created for teachers and the American
people would be united behind doing the right thing by giving our newest citizens a leg up.
The most important thing to remember in this debate is the message that the Statue of
Liberty bears to all those who come to the United States. It is our responsibility to embrace
the tired, poor, and huddled masses and do whatever is necessary to ensure that they have
just as much of a chance to live the American Dream as native-born citizens.
3rd Negative Speech:
We would like to thank the judges, the audience and our opponents for coming to this
debate. We would also like to state one final time that the United States of America does not
need and should not have an official language. It is important to remember that all of the
economic benefits our opponents claim stem from ESL education, which we already have in
the US. Their other option would be to federalize ESL, which would infringe on the market
freedom of existing language learning corporations. Their claims of fulfilling a moral duty are
also void, as declaring an official language would violate the higher moral duties of
respecting other cultures and preserving personal liberty.
I am glad that our opponents brought up the Statue of Liberty, because she is the very
symbol of what the United States ought to be. Lady Liberty stands to welcome all those
would come to the US and accepts them as they are, rather than insisting that they change
into something or someone else. At the heart of it, that is all that an English Only policy would
accomplish: sending a message to the rest of the world that they are only welcome to the
United States if they conform linguistically.